Whiterabbitears
I'm sorry, I'm trying really hard to explain myself and I don't want to flood this thread!
Heritage is heritage regardless of age and wearing a kilt is not the same as a toddler girl wearing a bikini, I'm afraid I don't see the comparison.
Let's try this. Imagine that the boy was newborn: at that stage when they're both ugly and amazing, blow bubbles, sleep all the time and rarely open their eyes even if awake, and twist their limbs about without knowing how to use them. Would you put a kilt on someone like that? I doubt it.
So between newborn and 2 years old, you would say that a baby boy passes an age when he should wear a kilt to a wedding, right? And it's there that we disagree.
First of all, the boy wouldn't be wearing a proper kilt. He would have some token tartan, perhaps in the form of an elasticated skirt. As soon as it's "token tartan" and "not a kilt", the lad may as well wear anything that displays the family colours, such as a cap, a badge, or a waistcoat. Tartan is very flexible.
The second thing is that, at two years old, he is very close to having a point of view of his own about what he wears. Is it at all right to dress him up so that all the ladies point and "aww" at him in the church, when we wouldn't even think about dressing up a teenage girl so that all the men do the same thing?